Romney stayed longer at Bain

[CaptainGoodnight]

Regardless, with the limited info I have at this point I am leaning towards naive, which is not the same thing as saying 'I didn't work at X company at Y time' when it seems that in fact, he did.

Ok, you say he did. Where is your proof? He said in that statement that he had: (keyword phrase here) "has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

You can have ownership in something and not be involved. Plus he did disclose any assets in Bain Capital, an those were properly reported.

 

[dank69]

Ok, you say he did. Where is your proof? He said in that statement that he had: (keyword phrase here) "has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

You can have ownership in something and not be involved. Plus he did disclose any assets in Bain Capital, an those were properly reported.

I don't have any proof, which is why I said 'it seems.' Owner/CEO drawing $100,000 salary but has zero involvement? Just seems unlikely to me. Aren't there operations that a company performs that require sign-off by the CEO? Did this company manage to operate for 2-3 years without a single sign-off?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

I don't have any proof, which is why I said 'it seems.' Owner/CEO drawing $100,000 salary but has zero involvment? Just seems unlikely to me. Aren't there operations that a company performs that require sign-off by the CEO? Did this company manage to operate for 2-3 years without a single sign-off?

Why does that sounds suspicious? That happens more than you might think.

Look at Steve Wozniak co-founder of Apple. He stopped working at Apple in 1983. "Officially" left the company in 1987 to start other companies. However he still remains an Apple employee and receives a token paycheck, est. to be roughly 120k per year.

I really don't know how that type of delegation works. He maybe able to legally delegate that stuff. Don't know.

 

[hal2kilo]

To be perfectly honest, I'll be amazed myself if this has any legs. I mean, Romney's campaign has proven itself to be incompetent on an almost weekly basis, but I can't believe he would really be so dumb as to get himself in hot water over this stuff.

Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a public figure did something truly idiotic out of sheer hubris.

I really think this is non-starter. There's so much more to go after than when did he retire and that he lied (like we just found out that he is a liar). I mean really who cares. I don't know if this came down from the DNC or some pundit echo. We need to pick better fights.

 

[dank69]

I really think this is non-starter. There's so much more to go after than when did he retire and that he lied (like we just found out that he is a liar). I mean really who cares. I don't know if this came down from the DNC or some pundit echo. We need to pick better fights.

I think it depends on whether it can be proven that he did actually have a say in the operations of Bain during that time and what actions Bain took during that time period that he presumably wanted to avoid being tied to. (Offshoring? Domestic job destruction?)

 

[Fern]

it depends on how you define "stayed"

his name was on the letterhead, but it doesn't sound like he had any active involvement in the company.

^This^

Folks, he was either running the Olympics or Bain; it wasn't both. It's really that simple.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Folks, he was either running the Olympics or Bain; it wasn't both. It's really that simple.

Sorry, but it really isn't. He's the presidential nominee of the "party of personal responsibility" while trying to claim that as CEO of a corporation, he wasn't responsible for what it did.

It's laughable.

If he was still the president and CEO, then he was responsible for what the company did, whether he was actively involved in day to day decisions or not.

He's trying to have his cake and eat it too, and he can't.

 

[techs]

How do you know when Romney is lying?
Every day he is alive.

I think its considered morally ok to lie to people who aren't Mormons in their religion.

 

[nyker96]

He's a politician and will say anything to get elected. An honest politician is an oxymoron.

In this I have to agree. I think when it comes to politicians you have to measure honesty relatively. Politician A is more honest than Politician B is a more practical statement. If a politician doesn't tell you what you want to hear will you elect him? Like ron paul, no one will elect him as the presidential candidate because i think he is just too honest. Even know i don't agree w/ everything he says, I think he's quite honest on many things. that's very rare.

 

[hal2kilo]

How do you know when Romney is lying?
Every day he is alive.

I think its considered morally ok to lie to people who aren't Mormons in their religion.

They sure don't have any problems with selling liquor to us heathens.

 

[Fern]

Sorry, but it really isn't. He's the presidential nominee of the "party of personal responsibility" while trying to claim that as CEO of a corporation, he wasn't responsible for what it did.

It's laughable.

If he was still the president and CEO, then he was responsible for what the company did, whether he was actively involved in day to day decisions or not.

He's trying to have his cake and eat it too, and he can't.

Yep, it is that simple.

The answer has been linked and people aren't clicking it.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-obsession-with-bain-continues.php

Romney left exactly when he says he left.

FactCheck.org has concluded that Romney’s tenure at Bain ended in 1999. In doing so, it reviewed a six-page submission by the Obama campaign. Team Obama’s submission included various SEC documents.

According to an Associated Press story that ran just two months later, Romney quickly discovered that he was working 16-hour days on the Olympics, leaving no time for Bain (or even his own wedding anniversary).

The AP story goes on to say that Romney “immersed himself in books on sports management” and “has answered about two dozen e-mails and letters a day, spent a quarter of his time dealing with the media, and juggled meeting requests from city officials, board members and business owners.”

It also quotes an accountant friend who was assisting Romney, Bob White, as saying “Right now he’s doing two, maybe three full-time jobs” running the Olympics. Romney’s wife, Ann, is quoted as saying that her husband had been working 112 hours a week at first, causing her to move to Salt Lake City to be with him. Since her arrival, she said, he had cut his Olympics work to 84 hours a week.

Fern

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The answer has been linked and people aren't clicking it.

I not only clicked that link, I replied to it a couple of pages back. It deals with whether or not he was running the company on a day-to-day basis, which isn't the issue under contention -- as CEO, he's responsible for what the company does, whether he's in the office or not.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No nit is too small to pick for the hacks among us. Pathetic.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Exactly, he told the SEC he was owner in legal filings with them, so he was legally responsible for what they did.

But then again, pretty much as per usual for this guy.

COMMITT MY FRIEND, TO ANYTHING

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Exactly, he told the SEC he was owner in legal filings with them, so he was legally responsible for what they did.

But then again, pretty much as per usual for this guy.

COMMITT MY FRIEND, TO ANYTHING

Fortune finds that Romney’s take is correct.

Bain Capital began circulating offering documents for its seventh private equity fund in June 2000. Those documents include several pages specifying fund management. The section begins:

Set forth below is information regarding the background of the senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital. Also listed are certain investment professionals responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Brookside and Sankaty funds, which are affiliated funds of Fund VII.

It then goes on to list 18 managers of the private equity fund. Mitt Romney is not among them. Same goes for an affiliated co-investment fund, whose private placement memorandum is dated September 2000.

Then there is Bain Capital Venture Fund — the firm’s first dedicated venture capital effort — whose private placement memorandum is dated January 2001. Romney also isn’t listed among its “key investment professionals,” or as part of its day-to-day operations or investment committee.

All of this could prove problematic for the Obama campaign, which has spent they day crowing over the Globe story (going so far as to hold a media call about it).

As Fortune wrote earlier, Romney left Bain suddenly -- rather than as part of an organized transition plan -- after being asked to lead an Olympic organizing committee that had spiraled out of control. Moreover, it was unclear in February 1999 if Romney's leave of absence would be permanent, or if he would return (as he had in 1994, after losing a U.S.Senate race to Ted Kennedy). He didn't formally give up his title and firm ownership until 2002, once the Games had been successful and he was interested in other elective office. In the interim, he continued to fulfill legal obligations such as signing certain documents -- but actual investment and managerial decisions were being made by others.

/thread

 

[woolfe9999]

The problem is there really is no content to this story or thread. Doesn't help that the OP just did a hit and run.

That may be, but I guarantee you that isn't why people started to change the subject 2-3 posts in. If the story lacks substance or is untrue/half-true then that is a proper issue to address, not Obama and Bill Ayers.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

/thread

Is it your contention that the CEO and president of a corporation is not responsible for its actions?

I doubt that's legally accurate.

But hey, keep whistling past the graveyard.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Is it your contention that the CEO and president of a corporation is not responsible for its actions?

I doubt that's legally accurate.

But hey, keep whistling past the graveyard.

I never said that.

It is you that keeps grasping at straws. Same logic the birthers use. Amazing.

I ask you what do you think the purpose of that disclosure statement was?

 

[zinfamous]

Don't forget terrorist and attempted mass murderer Bill Ayers.

el


oh


el.

that's like the "Kerry on stage with Jane Fonda" debacle the Pubs tried to vomit out in 2004.

 

[Fern]

I not only clicked that link, I replied to it a couple of pages back. It deals with whether or not he was running the company on a day-to-day basis, which isn't the issue under contention -- as CEO, he's responsible for what the company does, whether he's in the office or not.

According to whom?

You?

The law?

Morally?

I'm not aware anything making him legally responsible, not at that time anyway. I'm not aware of anything requiring him to sign off documents etc.

The SEC may have. But Since Bain Capital didn't go public until 2005 I'm not sure what they could require before that. Sar-Ox definitely holds the CEO responsible for signing off on financials. But it didn't pass until 2002, and I'm not sure when that requirement took effect, or if it only applies to public companies.

But I suspect you're talking about some kind of moral responsibility anyway.

Since FactCheck has already said the whole outsourcing thing is bogus I don't see any point to this discussion.

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

Ok, you say he did. Where is your proof? He said in that statement that he had: (keyword phrase here) "has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

You can have ownership in something and not be involved. Plus he did disclose any assets in Bain Capital, an those were properly reported.

Microsoft owneds a lot of Apple - but they have no say in what happens inside Apple. Microsoft is not involved in the operations of Apple in any way.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Also, the Globe glosses over this tiny nugget:

Romney did not finalize a severance agreement with Bain until 2002, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999. It expired in 2009.

So back in 2002 Romney finalized a 10-year severance agreement that expired in 2009 -- which would mean Romney wasn't active with the company going back to -- wait for it, wait for it -- 1999!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It is you that keeps grasping at straws. Same logic the birthers use. Amazing.

Sorry, don't see any equivalency here. Do I really need to explain why?

This whole issue has arisen because of scrutiny of some of Bain's activities. Romney is claiming that he's not responsible for anything that happened after 1999, and others are calling this into question.

So the question is whether he was really responsible for what the company did or not, if he was still its CEO.

There may also be legal issues, but I can't answer to those.

 

[werepossum]

Rabid lefty: Romney stayed longer at Bain!

Me: whats the big deal?

Rabid lefty: He lied!

Me: So what Obama has lied too.

Rabid lefty:

LMAO

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-obsession-with-bain-continues.php

Romney left exactly when he says he left.

Thanks for doing the homework. So now we see that it's actually Team Obama that's lying. Or perhaps Obama honestly thinks he still lives in Illinois since he still owns his house there.

EDIT: Another thing to consider is that companies best use the environment Congress gives them and react to what the business climate is, not what they wish it to be. If you take others' money to invest, it's unethical to not use that money in the most responsible manner under existing laws. If Congress removes tariffs and trade barriers, companies will offshore any jobs they can profitably offshore, or they will be replaced with companies that will. If the domestic steel industry is decimated by foreign competitors dumping product at below costs, it's unethical to spend the investors' money to provide jobs for people who no longer have useful contributions to make in those jobs. This is a failing of government, not of Bain.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Occam's razor anyone?

So what Werepossum, LTC8K6, Powerline, and other Mitt appologists are trying to say, is that its perfectly acceptable for a person to remain owner and CEO of a large corporation for 3 years, but make no decisions whatsover related to corporate governance?

The SEC filing is supposed to let everyone know who the hell is running the company.

And now that man wants the responsibility of being President?

Teehee.